Decentralized Poverty Reduction
Strategy (PRS): Experience from
Indonesia
April 17, 2005
1
Discussion Agenda
 Background
 Process and Outputs
 Links to Local Budget and Policy
 Links to The National PRS
 Lessons Learned
 What’s next?
2
Background
Why do a local PRS?

The National Government started formulating a National PRS(1) in 2002,
finalized in late 2004.

As a part of the National PRS formulation process, Participatory Poverty
Assessments (PPAs) were conducted in the regions to provide a better
understanding of the local situation and needs

In the decentralized environment, the Central Government requested Local
Governments to prepare regional PRS (at provincial and district levels):
 Many of the responsibilities for addressing multi-dimensional aspects of
poverty had been devolved to the local level and/or were at the
minimum a shared responsibility
 Diverse conditions –largest poverty numbers on Java, but highest
incidence off-Java– require local poverty diagnosis at local level
 With decentralized planning and budgeting process, it would be more
strategic to influence policies and budget at local level
(1) Official title of Indonesian PRS is “National Strategy for Poverty Reduction”. However, we use a more
generic term “National PRS” in this document.
3
Background
ILGR in the context of local PRS
 At the same time the Bank started preparing the Initiatives for Local
Governance Reform (ILGR) Project
 The project aims to improve local governance and to reorient local
governments to be more pro-poor. In addition to capacity building and
technical assistance to support governance reform, the project has an
“investment component” to demonstrate reforms through project
implementation
 Rationale for ILGR to support local PRS formulation:




Help National Gov’t develop a model for locally conducted PPAs
and PRS formulation (never done before!)
Local PRS formulation is a pilot for ILGR districts to implement a
participatory process in local policy formulation
Local PRS will support the improvement of annual planning and
budgeting process which is one of ILGR’s key reform areas
Pragmatic: ILGR needs to identify sub-projects for investment in a
participatory manner (through PPA)
4
Background
Who? When?
 Who has been preparing the local PRS?

A multi-stakeholder working group with members from LG officials,
local parliament members, NGO and community representatives 
voluntary work!
 How does ILGR support them?



1 general facilitator for each district
Training and workshops (at local or regional level)
Backstopping from national consultants (1 covers 5-6 districts)
 When?

March 2003-December 2004
5
Where? 15 districts in 9 provinces in Indonesia
(Sumatera, Java and Sulawesi)
Tanah Datar
Boalemo
Solok
Bolaang
Mongondow
Cluster E
Cluster A
Cluster F
Bandung
Cluster B
Gowa
Magelang Ngawi
Bulukumba
Takalar
Lebak
Majalengka
Kebumen
Bantul
Lamongan
Cluster C
= PRSAP DISTRICT
=
6
Process and Outputs
Local Poverty Reduction Strategy and Action Plan
(PRSAP) Formulation Framework
PHASE 1
Preparation
 Public meeting
(multistakeholders
forum) to
establish
Poverty
Working Group
(PWG)
 Legalization of
PWG
 Preparation of
work plan
Training
PHASE 2:
Assessment and Analyses
 Preliminary Analysis of
district poverty (secondary
data)
 Public consultation on
Preliminary Analysis and
Selection of Sites
 PPA in selected sites (based
on typology of poverty)
 Analysis to formulate
Problem Statements
 Public consultation on
Problem Statements
Training/
workshop &
backstopping
PHASE 3:
Strategy & Action
Plan Formulation
PHASE 4:
Institutionalization
 Formulation of
 Legalization of
PRS
PRSAP (through
District Head
 Public consultation
Decree or Local
on the Strategy
Regulation)
 Formulation of
 Implementation of
Action Plan
PRSAP through
 Public consultation
local planning and
on the Action Plan
budgeting
and overall PRSAP
mechanism
Training/
workshop &
backstopping
Workshop &
Backstopping
7
Process and Outputs
Social Inclusion: the Poor were involved in the
process
“I was involved in community
meetings, this is my first time to be
invited to attend a meeting. I have
never been asked to attend any
village meetings” said the poor
seaweed farmer in Bantaeng village
8
Process and Outputs
Opening Public Arena for Poverty Debate
The poor from all typology cluster attended public consultation in Gowa district.
Their work and opinions are shown in this meeting. They participated in group
discussions and debated some statements. One man said that education for his
children is high because teachers asked student to buy new books many times. The
teacher argued they did this because their salary is not enough. The poor responded
that they have to find other ways to increase salary but not to add burden to the
poor.
9
Process and Outputs
Women were Involved in the Process
“We were involved in community meetings, we
were asked our opinions, we like it”, according
to the women in one of the poorest village in
Bulukumba district.
Lia, a member of poverty working group
gave a PRSAP presentation in front of
150 participants in Gowa district public
consultation
10
Process and Outputs
PRSAP outputs and outcomes
 15 districts have finalized the PRSAP – 8 of which have already been
legalized through District Head (Bupati) Decree, which has budget
implications
 Starting in 2005 budgeting process, PRSAP is one of the references 
Let’s see how this will influence the budget—to be monitored
 Space established to allow non-government stakeholders to interact
with the executive and legislative and, more importantly, to influence
decision making process
 Build local stakeholders (particularly gov’t official) capacity in
participatory process. On the other hand, gives opportunities for the
poor (incl. women) to participate in district-level policy formulation
 The 15 districts get recognition from Central and Provincial
Government, other donors, and other stakeholders (e.g., resource
persons to share experiences in workshop/training, local government
officials promoted and elected as local parliament members)
 Results of PRSAP process feed into National PRS
11
Links to Local Budget and Policy
How is the PRSAP reflected in Local Budgeting?
Med-term
Planning
Annual Planning and Budgeting
Village
Planning
Discussion
5-year Regional
Dev’t Strategic
Plan
Subdistrict
Planning
Discussion
Technical
Agencies
Programming
Kabupaten
Planning
Discussion
Budgeting
(Executive)
Parliament
Budget
Approval
PRSAP
Legend:
= regular process
= ILGR intervention
12
Links to Local Budget and Policy
Local policy: view of the poor starts being
accommodated
 Education:
 More incentives for teachers working in isolated areas (Bulukumba)
 Land:
 Participatory local regulation formulation on spatial planning that
protects communities’ interest (Bulukumba, Ngawi, Bolaang
Mongondow)
 Environment:
 Formulation of local regulation and law enforcement on river
pollution (Bolaang Mongondow, Bandung)
 Formulation of local regulation on forest management (Lamongan)
 Access to capital:
 Policy formulation on the poor’s access to capital (Bulukumba)
13
Links to National PRS
How Local PRSAPs feed into National PRS?
 Involvement of National PRS Formulation Secretariat in ILGR’s
PRSAP related activities
 The issues identified in the PPAs and PRSAPs are compiled
and conveyed by ILGR National Secretariat to the National PRS
Secretariat.
 Study by SMERU (supported by JICA) compiling and
summarizing all ILGR Kabupatens PPAs to be presented to the
National PRS Secretariat
 Direct meetings between local governments and National PRS
Secretariat (e.g., through Bappenas-WB-GTZ-USAID supported
poverty workshop)
14
Links to National PRS
Examples of ILGR findings included in National PRS
National PRS – 10 Rights
Findings from ILGR District PRSAPs
• High cost of medication and insufficient supply of
health cards (to get free health services)

Access to Food

• Lack of incentive policy for health workers working in
poor and isolated areas
Access to Basic Health
Services

Access to Education
• High transportation costs to go to school

Access to Job
Opportunities and
Business Development

Access to Housing and
Sanitation

Access to Safe Water

Access to Land
Ownership

Access to Natural
Resources

Access to Security

Access to Participation
• High costs of school uniforms and books
• Water springs damaged by logging
• Lack of policy to protect water springs
15
Lessons Learned
General “weaknesses” of the PRSAPs
 Tendency to cover everything, difficult to prioritize
 Not enough details in action plans
 Difficult to maintain logical links from finding, analysis, strategy
and action plans – needs continued feedback
 Method to analyze district level data (quantitative and
qualitative) and to link it to community level findings need to be
strengthened and simpler
 Need to improve methodology in gender analysis
16
Lessons Learned
What we learned from the process?

District-level stakeholders have capacity to formulate local PRSAP in
participatory manner and are willing to work voluntarily as long as they get “right”
facilitation and support

PRSAP formulation process took almost 2 years (!). Despite “trial and error”
exercise, participatory policy formulation practices need time.

Need to prioritize (and simplify) the tools and methodology in conducting PPA
and formulating PRSAP

Pre-commitment from the heads of local executive and legislative is extremely
important. Not only to support the formulation (e.g., staff and budget), but, more
importantly, is the will to implement PRSAP through budgets

Learning from other districts is more effective and needs technical facilitation to
allow for a well structured learning process

Sustainable implementation of PRSAP needs minimum level of good
governance

Timing is critical: the beginning of the head of district’s and local parliament’s
period is the best time to formulate PRSAP
17
What’s next?
Looking forward
 Use of local PRSAP formulation framework, manuals and
training/ workshop modules in other regions, as well as districtlevel knowledge
 Policy dialogue in resolving local-level poverty issues which are
a part of national government mandate (e.g., public forest area
utilization)
 ILGR will:




Continue facilitating districts to implement PRSAPs
Monitor and evaluate the implementation of PRSAPs (e.g.,
whether the pro-poor budget portion increases?)
Enhance participatory planning and budgeting process
Support cross-district learning
18